Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: August ::
Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1454  Monday, 7 August 2000.

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 28 Jul 2000 17:01:23 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1436 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Douglas Chapman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 29 Jul 2000 11:57:04 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1436 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Michael Meyers <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 31 Jul 2000 23:14:07 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.1421 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 28 Jul 2000 17:01:23 -0400
Subject: 11.1436 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1436 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare

No, John,

In the traditional distinction between Art and Nature, Art is what
humans do, and Nature is what we are handed -- or, if you will, what we
don't do.  If a beaver builds a dam, it's natural; if a human builds a
dam, it artificial.  Simple.  And ridiculous, of course.  In any case,
using this artificial distinction, ideology is art.  As far as we know,
beavers do not construct ideologies.

And whatever could you mean by "Shakespearean value"?  Do you mean the
values (e.g., Shakespeare endorses dominant early English Christian
theology) that you impose on the texts that are attributed to
Shakespeare?  Or do you mean the value (i.e., worth) that you give to
those texts?  Or do you mean values that you construct from 400 year old
texts?  Etc.

Yours, Bill

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Douglas Chapman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 29 Jul 2000 11:57:04 EDT
Subject: 11.1436 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1436 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare

>From John Drakakis:

<...collapse 'art' into ideology or ideology into art you end up with a
sterile
<formalism which is pretty much where a lot of what passes for close
<reading of Shakespearean texts is and has been for quite some time.

Bravo, John. Succinct, to the point and what's even better, valid.

Thank you.
Douglas Chapman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Meyers <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 31 Jul 2000 23:14:07 -0500
Subject: 11.1421 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.1421 Re: Exploitation, Marx, and Shakespeare

John E. Perry <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > writes,

"Unless you're in the HR department, you really don't know what you're
talking about, and if you are, you're likely part of the Big Lie."

Gee John, this doesn't leave me much room.  I'm either a liar or I don't
know what I'm talking about.

But in spite of what you and Geralyn Horton may believe due to your
unique experiences [and I am sorry you have had trouble finding a job],
I am not a liar and I do indeed know what I am talking about.  While not
in HR, I have administered many 100's of salaries, hired countless
people, and done many audits of salaries of women and minorities vs.
white males.

Let's give this topic a rest!

Regards,
Michael
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.